Wednesday, July 29, 2015

What are the psychological consequences of abortion?

The pro-abortion world recently went crazy over a published study that made a rather outstanding claim. According to the study, 95% of women do not regret their abortions.
Abortion advocates could not wait to trumpet the results of this study,
excitedly proclaiming that this “proved” women don’t ever experience
guilt and that post-abortion syndrome does not exist.
But unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, the overwhelming
majority of scientific literature does not back up the results of the
this new study. In fact, the majority of the literature has found that women who undergo abortion do experience negative psychological consequences.

The outstanding scientific journal
“Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences” has just published (July 2013)
an important study on the psychiatric and psychological consequences of
abortion on women, entitled “Abortion and subsequent mental health:
review of the literature”. This study analyzed all scientific trials
published since 1995, that evaluated the psychological and psychiatric
health of women who had had an abortion, compared with those who had
either given birth to a baby or those who had had a miscarriage. The
authors retrieved 30 studies that took into account depression, anxiety
disorders (e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder) and substance abuse
disorders in the studied women. A detailed and thorough table that
describes every study, with particular attention to women’s age, scale
used for assessment, results, and type of the study.

The studies were categorized according to
the pregnancy outcome (childbirth, unplanned childbirth or miscarriage)
compared with abortion. The results were very interesting and gave new
light to the phenomenon of abortion.

a- On 19 studies that compared abortion
versus childbirth, 13 showed a clear risk for at least one of the
reported mental problems in the abortion group versus childbirth, five
papers showed no difference. Only one paper reported a worse mental
outcome for childbearing.

b- Some studies compared abortion versus
unplanned pregnancies ending with childbirth (this approach is
important, since an unplanned childbirth may be a reason for abortion
fearing psychological trauma): four studies found a higher risk in the
abortion groups and three no difference.

c- Last, authors analyzed those 9 studies
that compared abortion versus miscarriage (both ending with fetal
loss): three studies showed a greater risk of mental disorders due to
abortion, four disclosed no difference and in two, short-term anxiety
and depression were higher in the miscarriage group, while long-term
anxiety and depression in the abortion group.

What emerges from this analysis is that
it seems difficult to argue that abortion has no psychological or
psychiatric consequences: no study – with just one exception – in 30,
showed that abortion consequences are lower than childbearing, even in
the case of “therapeutic” abortion or in the case of unplanned
childbearing.

This is not altogether surprising news; pro-life advocates have long known that abortion comes with many risks. A higher incidence of mental health disorders is just one of them.
So why did the authors of the study that thrilled abortion activists
find so few incidences of regret? Well, one needs only to look at the study itself.

First, and most glaringly, the study only found that women did not
feel any regret in three years. That does not tell us that women never
experience regret. A long-term study, which followed the women
throughout their lives over five, ten, or 15 years would be much more
telling.
Second, the participant characteristics stand out as concerning.
Almost half of the participants have had prior abortions, and almost
half of them also reported not having any stigma towards abortion. Over
35% of them also reported choosing abortion for financial reasons, a
situation which likely would not have changed in just three short years.
A large number also reported that they had social support for their
decision.

Combine the facts that a large number of the women in the study have
had multiple abortions, are pro-abortion, the people around them are
pro-abortion, and are experiencing financial difficulties, and it’s not
entirely surprising that the authors got the results that they did.

The study is not an accurate representative of average American women
by any means. Women who have prior abortions are particularly less
likely to experience regret, because if they regretted their abortions,
they wouldn’t keep having them. Women who identify as pro-abortion, and
who are surrounded by people who are likewise pro-abortion – who tell
the post-abortive woman that she made the right choice – are also quite
obviously less likely to say that they feel regret or guilt. Meanwhile,
the number of first-time abortion seekers in the study is much lower –
and those are the women who arguably would be most susceptible to
regret.

When you compare one study with iffy data to the overwhelming
majority of the scientific literature, it isn’t hard to figure out what
to believe.

The simple fact of the matter is that abortion does indeed carry
risks, and those risks include negative psychological consequences. If
abortion activists want to keep claiming that they’re “pro-woman,” then
perhaps they should stop lying to women at every turn about what they
will be risking if they have an abortion.

The “self-deceiving rationalization” of Planned Parenthood

A
striking feature in all three undercover videos released by the Center
for Medical Progress is the callous way in which abortion workers
discuss the parts of babies they have killed or have been complicit in
killing.Callous is generally defined as being cold or hardened to
something; this is what we see with these abortion doctors. They discuss
“tissue” and “intact specimens” as if they were discussing blood taken
from the arm of a conscious patient.
In the first video, Dr. Deborah Nucatola talks casually about aborting viable fetuses and getting that tissue:

From my perspective, I think it’s not
going to be reasonable to be collecting at a site that does not have the
capability to go farther up in to the 2nd trimester. It doesn’t mean
that the facility needs to go all the way up to 24 weeks every time but,
to be able to at least say we can go up to 12 and 16, 12 and 18 would
probably be better, for the age protocols that require later gestational
tissue, 18 weeks is kind of the lowest range, 18 to 20, 24 for certain things. So, if we could get up to 18, that would make it worth it to be operating at that site. (Transcript, page 5)

It’s like she’s discussing data instead of babies. She does actually mention death – in a way:

Because if you induce a demise before the
procedure, nobody’s going to say you did a “live”—whatever the federal
government calls it. Partial-birth abortion. It’s not a medical term, it
doesn’t exist in reality. So some people use it to avoid providing a
“partial-birth abortion.” Others use it because they actually think it
makes the tissue softer and it makes it safer and easier to do the
procedure. Is there data for either of these? No. Because number 1, the
Federal Abortion Ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation. (Transcript, page 39)

Nucatola not only notes how to bypass the law, but remarks on how to
kill babies (“induce a demise”) while doing it, as matter-of-factly as
if she is talking about the annual budget.
The doctor in the second video, Mary Gatter, also shows a callousness
as she discusses prices – making her now infamous Lamborghini comment:

Well, it’s complicated by the fact that
our volume is so low too. I mean, are you looking at 8 and 9 week
specimens or only 2nd trimester specimens? (Transcript, page 10)

Gatter repeatedly refers to babies as “specimens.” But, like
Nucatola, she borders on referring to a baby as a person—one to
dismember:

Under twelve weeks, it’s a D&C, over twelve weeks it’s a D&E, whether you do all with suction or dismemberment.
I have written documentation from ACOG describing D&E even though
you’re doing suction. So, it’s totally a billing issue. The technique we
use at thirteen weeks is the same suction technique we use at eleven
weeks. (Transcript, page 14)

And then she makes her other now-infamous comment about “less
crunchy” abortions, referring to manual vacuum aspiration, which can be
more dangerous and painful for women, but which she says will yield
“whole specimens”:

And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a “less crunchy” technique to get more whole specimens. (Transcript, page 22)

The latest video
shows Dr. Katharine Sheehan, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood
Pacific Southwest, casually mentioning fetal procurement agencies who do
“big government collections” (of babies). And Dr. Savita Ginde, Vice
President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky
Mountains, comments about how the kidneys are intact in a pie tray of
baby parts. “Because if I looked at that, I’d be like, that’s good to
go” – as a medical assistant says, “five stars” in the background,
laughing. She goes on to discuss the selling of fetal parts: “I think a
per item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much
we can get out of it.”
All of these doctors once took the Hippocratic Oath,
which says, in part, “Above all, I must not play at God. I will
remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a
sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and
economic stability.” And yet they have forgotten the humanity of the
preborn baby.
M. C. Kaveny writes in “Appropriation of Evil: Cooperation’s Mirror
Image,” a sobering statement about the power of desensitization of evil
and profit from abortion:

An additional danger is present.
Individuals involved in any of the above actions can become desensitized
to the sanctity of life. This is particularly true if one has become
accustomed to benefits flowing from the performance of an action that
foreseeably but unintentionally results in the death of a human being. If one is profiting from abortion, even remotely, it might be tempting to decide against taking steps to eliminate it.

A potentially more serious problem to be
faced is an interior one—how to justify profiting from a grave evil
already committed by another. The cooperator “might simply develop an
elaborate scheme of self-deceiving rationalization.” (Theological Studies 61 [2000], 288-306. )

Clearly these physicians have become desensitized and appear to have
developed “self-deceiving rationalization.” There’s no other way one
could discuss a slaughtered baby and his or her body parts so callously
otherwise.

In
an emergency e-mail appeal to supporters with the subject line “This is
an emergency (Planned Parenthood),” the president of NARAL Pro-choice
America, Ilyse G. Hogue, called for action to save the abortion giant.
The donation e-mail blast was packed full of Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards’ rhetoric. Hogue begins:

Planned Parenthood is under attack.

The nation’s largest provider of
reproductive health care is facing a highly coordinated smear campaign
by militant extremists — and now anti-choice members of Congress think
this is their chance to destroy Planned Parenthood.

It’s all hands on deck to save Planned Parenthood and stop the wave of attacks on abortion rights coming at us.

Clearly, NARAL is as desperate as Planned Parenthood to deflect the
reality that over 320,000 babies are slaughtered in Planned Parenthood
abortion mills every year. In fact, it’s so desperate, it’s using
libelous lies that echo Richard’s slanderous comments on ABC News Sunday.
Hogue writes:

In recent days, three heavily edited,
secretly recorded videos have been released by a group linked to clinic
bombings and the murders of doctors.1 The latest video just
came out this morning. There have also been reports that Planned
Parenthood’s internal databases have been hacked.2

It’s an all-out assault on one of the most important reproductive health providers in America.

Quite the contrary. Actually, it is an all-out assault to try to
cover up the truth, beginning with Hogue’s footnoted sources. She tries
to attribute a mainstream publication to support her lies that the
Center for Medical Progress is associated with a couple lone rangers who
are clearly not pro-life, and exhibited violence against doctors and
clinics. There are several problems with this assertion. The obvious one
is that it is a complete lie. As Live Action detailed after Richards’ interview on ABC:

She’s alluding to Dr. George Tiller, the
late-term abortion doctor who was murdered in church by a man who acted
independently. Scott Roeder, who killed Tiller, would call Operation
Rescue on the phone (as any member of the public can do), but he was not
part of their group. Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman, sits on the board
of CMP, so the abortion giant is trying to tie CMP to murder.

However, in telling that lie, Hogue deceives again. Her footnote to that accusation is this story from the New York Times,
where no mention is made of Daleiden being tied to bombings and
murders. The truth is Daleiden has never been involved in violent
activity against abortionists. Perhaps Hogue assumes by adding official
looking footnotes and sources, no one will bother to read. But the
source she cites doesn’t actually support what she argues.
Her second accusation implies that Daleiden’s group had something to
do with Planned Parenthood’s website being hacked. Again, her source doesn’t support this.
It simply states that “anti-abortionist activists claimed to have
hacked Planned Parenthood’s database.” And the story’s only sources are
abortion advocates anyway. But Hogue is so desperate that she is
attempting to link anything she can.
She does manage to tell the truth when she says tissue donation is
legal. Of course, selling tissue, profiting off tissue, and altering
abortion techniques to get “whole specimens” isn’t legal, but that is
not mentioned in NARAL’s desperate emergency plea for money.
Hogue then lets readers in on the NARAL battle plan, for which she needs money.

We’re flooding Congress with patch-through-style phone calls and
petition signatures to make sure every single Planned Parenthood
supporter has their voice heard.

We’re demanding investigations into the illegal activities of the
activists behind the videos — including whether they broke the law by
secretly recording Planned Parenthood staff without consent.

Our team of policy experts are all over Capitol Hill educating members of Congress on the facts.

So why the emergency? Hogue writes, “these attacks against Planned
Parenthood came out of nowhere, and we didn’t budget for the huge fight
we’re now facing.”
Considering how much money Planned Parenthood makes every year, it
would seem Planned Parenthood would have enough money to fight its own
battle. But, then, how would NARAL profit off of this?

Even though Mrs. Clinton’s numbers are
tumbling, political analysts still convince themselves she will likely
be the next President

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton

Political prognostications can usually be said to fall into two broad
categories. “Givens” that are virtually impenetrable to change and
those “givens” which over time (and given enough evidence) will begin to
shift.

Since most reporters (to put it politely) lean liberal and
pro-abortion, one of the givens that will be most resistant to change is
that there are too many pro-life Republicans running for President,
thus making it more difficult for one to emerge early enough as the
clear leader to run an effective campaign.

But, on second thought, there is a third category: givens that come
full circle. First they are conventional wisdom on steroids, then they
need a temporary re-evaluation, but then they reestablish themselves as
gospel truth.

In that category I would place the presidential fortunes of
pro-abortion former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Almost since
Barack Obama was re-elected, “everybody knew” she would be the
Democrats’ nominee in 2016.

But anyone who has followed her career with even the slightest
skepticism knew that her popularity would take a swoon once she
officially entered the race. She is not a particularly likable human
being and she hates the media with a passion, even when she is treated a
hundred times better than a Republican, with the same baggage, would be
treated.

So that brings us to two recent stories. The first is by Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal.
Cook looks at some of the numbers rolling in and the seemingly
nonstop controversy over (take your pick, there are many). He asks now
that “the USS HRod” may be beginning to take on water, what is “Plan B”
for Democrats?
Or as Cook puts it more colorfully,

Is there an emergency “break the
glass” option if real questions of Clinton’s electability arise? It
seems extremely unlikely that any one issue could bring Clinton down,
but what if she begins to suffer ‘death by a thousand cuts’?

Cook then peruses the Democrats’ bench (hint, it is very thin)
yet comes to the conclusion that , short of some national security
catastrophe, Hillary is still the odds on favorite to win. (Cook belongs
to the demography is destiny camp.)

The headline on Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza’s column is
“4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary Clinton.” Her popularity
numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are extraordinarily low. Her
favorable/unfavorable is down 23% in Iowa and 20% in New Hampshire.
Then there are the two national polls. Gallup’s lead paragraph includes this:

Hillary Clinton’s rating has
slipped to 43% from 48% in April. At the same time, Clinton’s
unfavorable rating increased to 46%, tilting her image negative and
producing her worst net favorable score since December 2007.

CNN’s poll results are no better. Clinton’s “favorability
rating is net negative among registered voters nationally: 49% have an
unfavorable view while 44% have a positive impression.”
Cillizza goes through a host of explanations why Clinton’s numbers
have tumbled only to conclude that she’s likely to prevail anyway. Why?
Because all politicians these days are unpopular so in the end
traditional measures of popularity (that at least half the electorate
has a favorable impression of you) may not matter.

If so, they might choose “experience and readiness to do the job at
hand,” which, in Cillizza’s eyes, is Hillary Clinton’s calling card.

Without going through Mrs. Clinton’s eight years in the U.S. Senate
and her role as Secretary of State, is it really so obvious (or obvious
at all) that she has the “experience and readiness” to do the job better
than a host of Republicans who have served much longer in public office
and/or have executive experience as well? Really?
What am I missing? Oh, that most reporters and columnists will always want a pro-abortion Democrat to be President.

The third PPFA undercover video: From talking about the trade in baby body parts to actually seeing them

By Dave Andrusko
Let me begin by strongly encouraging you to first read NRLC’s response
to the third video distributed by The Center for Medical Progress in its
ongoing series of undercover interviews with high-ranking Planned
Parenthood associates.

In the first two videos we learned a great deal about just how
desensitized Drs. Deborah Nucatola and Mary Gatter have become. To make
jokes about intact baby body organs and Lamborghinis between bites of
salad and sips of red wine documents how far into the abyss you can
fall.
The third CMP video, released this morning, apparently includes
footage shot at the “pathology laboratory” of Planned Parenthood of the
Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver.

The video begins by warning that “Some viewers may find this content
disturbing.” Assuming you are not an employee of PPFA–and perhaps even
some of them–watching the baby’s remains spread out so as to determine
which parts are intact enough to be sold is enough to make you lose your
lunch. But if we don’t look–and spread the word–then evil wins.

In Video #3, we’re being taken from the abstract to the concrete. We don’t just hear about the grisly traffic in baby body parts. We actually see various body parts from the remains of an “11.6 week” aborted unborn child.
There is intact neural [brain] tissue. And referring to an intact kidney, a medical assistant quips, “5 Stars.”
As the day proceeds, we doubtless will hear variations of the usual
PPFA talking points. All have one purpose: to take our eyes off of what
is taking place–and not just at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky
Mountains.
We have two other related posts today. I hope you will read all four and distribute them far and wide.

Doctors speak out about abortions and their struggle to perform them

By Cassy FianoHow
does a person who pledges to “first, do no harm” justify actively
taking a person’s life on a regular basis? How can a doctor switch back
and forth between healer and executioner?

The July issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology explored how this affects residents, as they grappled with the moral implications of performing abortions. Four residents were profiled,
and each of them struggled with a variety of questions. When does life
begin? How can I justify harming a preborn child? What would God, my
parents, or my friends think? Here, we see that even residents who
choose to continue performing abortions are not truly comfortable and at
peace with that decision.

Resident 1:Increasingly, I have found myself caught up in an endless array
of rhetorical questions. Is there not a more profound difference between
10 and 20 weeks than between 20 and 30? If my first task as a physician
is to do no harm, how can I justify harming a fetus? I do not pretend
to know the answers to these questions, but given what I perceived to be
an abyss of ambiguity, I chose not to provide elective terminations.

Resident 2:After my first morning of early abortions, we performed an
18-week termination. Seeing the fetus on an ultrasound scan and then
watching it as we did the procedure really shook me to the core. I
thought maybe I had made the wrong choice, and I could not stop thinking
about what my family would think if they knew what I had done.Later that week we had an informal gathering of residents who had
struggled with abortion training. It became apparent that others shared
similar feelings. Many of us felt more comfortable with early abortions
and struggled with second-trimester cases.

Resident 3:Abortion is a necessary procedure that I feel morally obligated
to make available to my patients. The future of this service hinges on
our society’s ability to support its practice, prevent undesired
pregnancy, and ensure the safety of abortion providers. I have worked
through my own internal struggles, but these broader societal issues
will shape how I practice in the future.

Resident 4:I am a Born Again Christian, and I believe that life begins at
conception. I believe that since I do not have the power to create life,
I do not have the power to take it. I am proud of my choice and do not
apologize for it, but that was not always the case.

I love obstetrics and gynecology — the breadth and depth, the
bonds between patients and providers, and the lifelong relationships
that are formed. However, I once heard someone say that an ob-gyn who
did not provide terminations was not offering their patients the best,
most complete care. Initially I shrugged this off as her opinion and
deemed it irrelevant to me and to what my practice would become. But as I
replayed that statement in my mind, I began to wonder, would I be
providing the best care to my patients if offering terminations
conflicted with my personal beliefs and passions? Would my patients feel
judged and unsupported if I told them that I could not provide a
service that they needed? Could I be truly impartial in my counseling?

It takes a certain level of cognitive dissonance to be both a doctor
and an abortionist. And while decades ago it may not have been as much
of an issue, our scientific knowledge has advanced; it has undoubtedly
become harder and harder for doctors to quiet their doubts. With the
advent of ultrasound technology, the humanity of the preborn has become
unmistakable. We understand embryology and fetal development better now
than ever before, so despite the abortion industry’s shoddy science,
we know that a preborn baby’s heart is beating just three short weeks
after conception, and that brain waves can be measured not long after.
We know that at the moment of conception, the baby has a completely
separate DNA strand. Never before has it been so difficult to ignore the
reality that the baby being ripped apart in an abortion is, in
actuality, a living human being, completely separate from his mother.

It’s hard to take an oath to do no harm and yet, do immense amounts
of harm every single day. And no matter how much the abortion lobby
tries to paint a pretty picture, the reality is much more grim—so much
so, that even doctors who perform abortions and say they’re proud to do
so can’t quite make their doubts go away.
Editor’s note. This appeared at
http://liveactionnews.org/doctors-speak-abortions-struggle-perform/ and
is reprinted with permission.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Parents share on Facebook why they refused abortion and chose life for their children

Popular photoblog Humans of New York
recently shared two true stories about people who chose life instead of
abortion. Facebook users responded in droves, with over one million
likes and more than 29,500 shares between the two stories.

The comments have exploded, passing 13,000 – many with people sharing
their own choices for life and the children they were blessed with as a
result.
The most recent of the life posts from Humans of New York details a
couple who got up and walked out of their abortion appointment, even
after filling out the paperwork:
The other Humans of New York post shows a young man whose mother
helped him see that a pregnant girlfriend was an opportunity for him to
step up to the plate and act like a man – and like the father he already
was – instead of shirking responsibility. Real fathers act to save and
love their children. (If you’re a man who’s wondering what to do about
the potential abortion of your child, go here.)

Here are some of the stories people shared in response to the two
Humans of New York posts. There are an amazing number of women who
cancelled their abortion appointments the very day they were scheduled –
some even while they were in the clinic or on the table.At every moment, we can choose life!

Vonalina Cake – “I cancelled mine the morning of the appointment…my boy is 17 now and 6ft 2 and a bit.”Daf Guillen –
“I was 16 and pregnant and also went to an abortion clinic. They did an
ultrasound and turned the screen away from me. The doctor said I wasn’t
allowed to see because it might make me change my mind. I started
crying, sat up and said “I think I just did, I’m keeping my baby” now my
son is almost 9 years old and I don’t know what I’d do without him”

Erica Roberts Crownover –
“My first child is adopted and she’s almost 3 months old. Her birth mom
is one of the bravest people I know and she had made two appointments
to go to an abortion clinic, but the both times she couldn’t go through
with it. I’m forever grateful to her for giving us what we struggled for
years to have.”

Adia Wrapstostayhome Holt –
“My boyfriend wanted me to get an abortion with our daughter. I went to
the abortion clinic. I had the ultrasound and everything to tell how
far along i was. But in Louisiana you have to wait 24 hours to actually
have the procedure. I am so thankful for that because i couldn’t do it.
My daughter will be 5 on Sunday. I am sooo happy i didn’t have the
abortion. She saved me. I was acting reckless. Doing things had no
business doing. I honestly know that she saved my life.”

Nicole Helderlein –
“My mom kicked me out when I told her I was pregnant. She took my car
and told me she wouldn’t support me. 7 years later and I stand on my
own, support myself and my daughter. Sometimes we find our strength out
of necessity. Keep your head up and just do right by your child.”Matthew Davis –
“Hey man, I was surprised at 20 that I was going to be a Dad. I was
scared shitless. That was 15 years ago and my parents were all super
supportive. Now my daughter and listen to similar music and she is
artistic and cooler and smarter than I ever was. I wouldn’t trade
fatherhood-with all its challenges-for anything in the world.

Let me tell you something. Whether your Mom is old school tough or
new wave soft, she loves you. Being a Man and manning up to being a
FATHER to another human being is honestly the toughest, smartest,
coolest, and most badass adventure upon which you can embark. You get to
mold someone’s mind and heart and teach another human being how to be.
What will you teach them? Weakness? Absence? No, I doubt that. I think
that you will teach that small person about your manly strength, your
intelligence, your passion, persistence, and your love. And I encourage
you to do so. You will find great personal reward in this endeavor. And
there is plenty of support out there. I have faith in you. I don’t even
know you, but somehow I believe in you. If you want advice, let me know
privately.”

Sharlotte Mazoe –
“Was in that exact position at 17. However, I was alone at the abortion
clinic. Changed my mind at the last minute, and now she is 24 and the
best friend i’ve ever encountered. She looks out for me, very protective
of me and she is my biggest cheerleader. Can’t imagine what life would
have been like without her. My dear, cherish every moment you have with
her. I salute you both for taking that decision at such a young age.
Bless you!”Anne Shirley –
“Even when she was a single cell, she had a life worth living,
defending, protecting. The baby everyone told me to abort is 18 and
heading to college, and her dad and I have been married 19 years. LIFE
is beautiful!”

Soraya Atkinson –
“I was 16 when I fell pregnant & my mum swore to me if I didn’t
abort she’d never speak to me again. He’s almost two and they are
inseparable! I live independently, study and have a happy healthy happy
boy. Best decision I ever made was to not listen to my mum. A
grandmothers love is so different to any other. She’ll thank you one
day.”

Sarah Powell –
“I had my first child at 17. I graduated high school 7 months later
with my class. I went to college that fall. By the time I graduated 8
years later, I had 2 more kids. I now have 6, a bachelors degree, a
husband, and a great paying job. We are happily middle class, own our
home and a business. A child too soon isn’t a death sentence.”

Judy Boudreau –
“I was 38 when I got pregnant. My husband didn’t want kids but when I
said I couldn’t go through with an abortion we decided to go for it.
Unfortunately I had a miscarriage, but my husband said “let’s try again …
I got used to the idea of having a rugrat.” So at age 40 and again at
43, I had 2 beautiful baby boys who have made my life so beautiful that I
cry thinking of the alternative.”

Kari Botts –
“I was 18 when I told my mom and dad I was pregnant. My mom rose from
her chair and immediately hugged me. It took my dad 3 days to say
anything to me. But he finally did. Now my son is 17 and he is the best
choice I ever made! I married a man who has raised him as his own and
loves him as his own.”

Amanda Szela –
“I got pregnant after my boyfriend and I had been dating 9 months – I
was 23 and living in my own, but I was still nervous to tell my parents.
I was so anxious waiting for their response and then my dad said ‘if
everyone waited until they were ready to have a baby, no one would ever
have babies…’
It was the best response. We are now married, my daughter is 4.5yrs old and we have a 6 month old baby boy.”

Laura Grace –
“My mom made me “man up” too!!! I was 18 when I got pregnant, had my
son at 19. My mom would NOT watch my son unless I was going to school,
work, or a doctors appointment!
My son will be 17 in February and wants to join the Air Force to become a para rescue jumper…I couldn’t be prouder!!
It will all work itself out!!!”

Amanda Nicole –
“I got pregnant at the age of 21. My parents were really cool about it.
I had thought they would of kicked me out. My boyfriend at the time
wanted nothing to do with me when I told him. Now I’m 22, in school to
be in the medical field, I’m working part time and I have a beautiful
baby girl named Olivia. My life has completely changed and it’s all for
the better. The first time you see your baby on the ultra sound I knew I
had to be the best person I could be. I love my baby girl more than
anything. She’s the best thing that could of ever happened to me. Be the
best you can and your child will love you more than you know. The love
of a child and those moments where you see them smile is worth any
sleepless nights and any aggravation you may have. Good luck to you and
your girlfriend.”

Nicole McEacharn Potts –
“I was 17 and pregnant and briefly considered the same. But now he’s 20
and he’s a US Marine and I could not be more proud of him. We did
good.”

Roman St Pierre –
“That’s amazing sir! I’m a young father myself. I have an amazingly
beautiful daughter that is over two years old now. I don’t regret one
single second not going forward and being with my now fiancé, and being
with her every second of her pregnancy. Congratulations. It looks like
your doing just fine as a father!”(Photo credit: Julie, Dave, and family on Flickr)Deb Fowler Dunn –
“When my twenty-something daughter got pregnant I asked her if she’d
consider getting an abortion. At the time she was addicted to opioids
and with a total loser. That was four years ago. She’s been clean of
drugs nearly 2 years, has her own apartment, supports herself and her
son without the baby-daddy’s help and we have the most precious 3 year
old grandson. I’m glad she knew better than Mom.”

Terri DeWolf Mark Booth – “Good for you guys! I did the same thing 37 years ago. Never regretted it! He’s a handsome, wonderful man.”“My gorgeous mom chose life. Here she is with the daughter she loves.”
Many Facebook posters congratulated these parents on choosing life, hoping that many more would do the same:Carolina Garnica – “*standing ovation* that’s what I call ‘courage’” Wendy Brenneman – “This should be a flier in every abortion clinic. So glad you chose life!”

“Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead”

By Dave Andrusko
As we’ve done for the last two weeks, we will be offering multiple
posts today on the controversy, which shows no signs of waning (just the
opposite), over two secretly recorded videos in which two high ranking
Planned Parenthood officials blasély conversed about intact hearts and
lungs and livers and skulls.
Many people, including me, have attempted to convey why these
conversations recorded by The Center for Medical Progress have created
such a whirlwind of controversy. Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New
York Times, offered his insight in a column “Looking Away From Abortion” that ran Sunday.
I’m going to fold his very helpful thoughts into another post. But I
want to thank him for beginning with an excerpt from an essay that
appeared in a book by Dr. Richard Selzer published in 1976. We’ve
written about a different essay in “Mortal Lessons: Notes On The Art Of
Surgery” on several occasions. (I’m reposting that one which goes back
all the way to 1993. Of everything I’ve written in the last 34 years, it
is my all-time favorite.)
What Selzer saw is as good an example of the shock of recognition as
you will ever find. After a garbage truck has left, Dr. Selzer finds “a
foreignness upon the pavement.” But the “it” is not an “it” at all, but
fetal body parts which a hospital

“mixed up with the other debris”
instead of being incinerated or interred. “It is not an everyday
occurrence. Once in a lifetime, he [the hospital director] says.

(You have to read much further into Selzer’s essays to appreciate its sheer soul-chilling impact.)
The bag containing the babies’ remains had fallen off the garbage
truck and broken open. It was very important to the hospital director
that Selzer understand what had happened—and to himself as well, it
appears. He laid out that “aborted fetuses that weigh one pound or less
are incinerated. Those weighing over one pound are buried at the city
cemetery.”
Why the need for the meticulous detail? Selzer speculates that it is
an attempt to offer a rationale—an assurance—that contrary to your lying
eyes, the world has not gone crazy. The director’s explanations are to
assure us so that

Now you see. It is orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still a civilized society…

But Selzer DID see, in the only way that matters.

“All at once you step on
something soft. You feel it with your foot. Even through your shoe you
have the sense of something unusual, something marked by a special
‘give.’ It is a foreignness upon the pavement. Instinct pulls your foot
away in an awkward little movement. You look down, and you see… a tiny
naked body, its arms and legs flung apart, its head thrown back, its
mouth agape, its face serious. A bird, you think, fallen from its nest.
But there is no nest here on Woodside, no bird so big. It is rubber,
then. A model. A joke. Yes, that’s it, a joke. And you bend to see.
Because you must. And it is no joke. Such a gray softness can be but one
thing. It is a baby, and dead.

As he ponders what he has seen and heard—and what it means — Selzer concludes

But just this once, you know it isn’t [sane and sensible]. You saw, and you know.

At least in the first two videos we have not seen baby body parts. But we have seen into the heart of darkness.
As you listen to Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director for medical
services for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Dr. Mary
Gatter, president of the Medical Directors Council of PPFA, you might
truly begin to understand for the very first time the banality of evil.
How behavior that almost defies imagination can be carried out on a
mass scale by ordinary people so utterly desensitized that they can
cheerfully talk over salad and red white wine about what they are doing
to helpless unborn babies.

What happens when Planned Parenthood is no longer the “good guy”?

By Dave Andrusko It’s hardly unfair to say that New York Times
is enraged each and every time a piece of pro-life legislation is
introduced (let alone passed). The only time the Times is happy when
pro-life Republicans talk about abortion is when a GOPer has trouble
articulating what he or she means to say which makes it possible for the
Times to announce, “Ah hah! Another campaign in the never ending war on
women.”

So you can only imagine how angry most of the reporters, virtually
all of the columnists, and the entire editorial board is when it is
pro-abortion Democrats’ who are largely at a loss for words—in other
words on the defensive. That is the current situation as one of the
Democrats most important allies—Planned Parenthood—is in the middle of
turbulent seas and taking on a lot of water.
So you get headlines like this: “Republicans Alter Script on
Abortion, Seeking to Shift Debate.” Which is another way of saying how
dare pro-life Republicans talk about the extremism not only of PPFA but
also the Democratic Party. You are supposed to act like a piñata—and
like it.
So when they talk about their kids and grandkids and ultrasounds and
all the things unborn children can do, it’s all reading from a ”script.”
Which is not to be confused with the White House (and Hillary Clinton)
which hews to the PPFA line, syllable for syllable.
But it is not pro-life Republicans who are altering the script on
abortion but prominent Planned Parenthood officials. Even if you’ve only
seen the short version of the videos and skimmed the complete
transcripts, you’re stunned by the callous and cavalier way Drs. Deborah
Nucatola and Mary Gatter talk about harvesting baby body parts.
The lone pro-life New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote about the mounting controversy over the weekend. As always he is very much worth reading.

He especially debunks the false parallelism that PPFA and all
abortionists trot out: all surgery is bloody and abortion is surgery so
if no one gets upset by removing a gall bladder, why get upset by
removing an unborn baby in parts—or intact?
Pro-abortionists tell us, “It’s unsettling, yes, but just because it’s gross doesn’t prove it’s wrong.” Douthat responses

Which is true, but in this case
not really true enough. Because real knowledge isn’t purely theoretical;
it’s the fruit of experience, recognition, imagination, life itself.

And the problem these videos create for Planned Parenthood isn’t just a generalized queasiness at surgery and blood.

It’s a very specific disgust,
informed by reason and experience — the reasoning that notes that it’s
precisely a fetus’s humanity that makes its organs valuable, and the
experience of recognizing one’s own children, on the ultrasound monitor
and after, as something more than just “products of conception” or
tissue for the knife

The Abortion Lobby talks as if all that matters is process—how a
diseased tissue or an “unwanted” child—is removed. But it’s more than
that, which even an elementary capacity to see beyond WHAT is being done
to see to WHOM it is done will demonstrate. We don’t bond with our
appendix or walk our liver down the aisle.
But because PPFA is “at the heart of respectable liberal society,”
Douthat writes, it is very difficult to “start pondering the possibility
that [it is] an institution dedicated to a practice that deserves to be
called barbarism.” He explains

That’s a hard thing to accept.
It’s part of why so many people hover in the conflicted borderlands of
the pro-choice side. They don’t like abortion, they think its critics
have a point … but to actively join our side would require
passing too comprehensive a judgment on their coalition, their country,
their friends, their very selves.

True, but for how long? How long will honorable people insist on
averting their gaze from what PPFA does just because they are “one of
us”?

On
May 12, 2015, David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Vice President and Research
Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, was invited to speak on the
science of fetal pain on Point of View radio talk show. On May
13, 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The full transcript is below:Ms. Penna Dexter: We want to talk about fetal pain […] because this bill is so much stronger. It actually
bans abortions after twenty weeks, and that’s because – I don’t think
there’s a doubt now that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks?
Dr. David Prentice:
The science is pretty conclusive at this point. And there are always
going to be people, especially those in favor of abortion, who will say,
“Oh that really doesn’t happen, and they’ll throw up a smokescreen. And
what they usually do is they refer to an old study back in 2005 that
was published actually by people who had associations with Planned
Parenthood and other abortion providers.
But the real science – and there’s some new things in fact, that have come out in the last few months – but the
science pretty conclusively demonstrates: Young babies still in the
womb at 20 weeks after conception, and probably even earlier, do indeed
feel pain, and in fact, may feel more intense pain than a newborn or an
adultMs. Dexter: And that is because [of] their development?
Dr. Prentice:

Source: LifeSite News
Exactly, they have a higher density of nerve receptors. Like you said, your skin is not very thick at that point, but there is another aspect.
There are certain pathways that sort of tone down pain.
If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I’m going to feel it because the pain
sensation goes up to my brain, but there is also a return path to try
and tone that down. That doesn’t even start to develop until about the time that you’re born, so you don’t get this dampening of the pain.
In fact, there was a study done, reported just a
couple weeks ago, where they were looking at pain experience of newborns
– just between one and six or seven days old and adults, and the
headlines were, “Babies feel pain like adults and they feel it more intensely.”
The study actually looked at regions of the brain associated with pain using very sophisticated technology
and comparing not really pain, just sort of like you’d take the end of a
pencil and press it against the bottom of this baby’s foot, a little
bit of pressure, a little sensation there.
A lot of the babies even slept through this whole procedure, but they were in this functional MRI machine, very sophisticated technology, and then they would do the same thing to adults to see how they responded.Eighteen of the twenty pain regions lit up in babies,
eighteen of the twenty that are the same as adults, and at four times as
sensitive. So again, you don’t develop this feedback loop to
shut down pain until right about that time, and it takes even several
months after birth for it to start to mature.
Now, wind back the clock to five months after conception,
you’re a little past halfway through development in moms womb. You
don’t even have that feedback loop at all; it’s not starting until months
later in your life – and now the pain is very intense. We don’t know
exactly how much, but much more intense for the small amount that you
might feel as an adult.Ms. Dexter:So one of the arguments that’s made is that at twenty weeks the
baby doesn’t have a mature cerebral cortex. What do you say to that
argument?
Dr. Prentice:
Well, if your listeners aren’t up to speed on brain anatomy, the
cortex is sort of the outermost part that is, in terms of your conscious
thoughts and so on, it’s the last part of the brain to develop.
There is indication that some of that neuronal material in your brain
is already present, starting to be formed certainly by twenty weeks
after conception, but it also turns out that that’s not the most important part of your brain for pain perception.
There’s another deeper layer that forms early in your brain called the thalamus, deep inside your brain. It forms even earlier in development – probably about 8 to 12 weeks
is when you start to see it forming, and those nerve tracks already
connect to the thalamus by the time you are 20 weeks after conception,
or after fertilization.
In fact, there are individuals who are born without the cerebral cortex, and they feel pain. We know that for a fact.
So, you don’t need that cortical layer to actually feel pain. What
you need are these deeper parts of the brain and simply the neural
tracks for sensation. And those are definitely formed, intact, and
responding by twenty weeks after conception.Ms. Dexter:That argument that no mature cerebral cortex, and that’s
necessary for perception of pain, that’s one of your smokescreen
arguments that you’ve been talking about?
Dr. Prentice:
It is definitely a smokescreen.Ms. Dexter: If a scientist starts using terminology that you don’t really understand, then you get intimidated.
Yes, people start throwing out these technical terms…In fact, it wasn’t until probably the last ten or fifteen years that doctors really thought newborns even experienced pain,
so they would be doing lots of procedures on them after birth and they
didn’t think that they could even receive pain at that point in time.
Fast forward to where we are now, and starting about that time, fetal surgery started to come into vogue, where they are actually doing operations on these little ones while they’re still in the womb.
I know your listeners have probably seen that famous photo of the
little hand reaching out of the womb grabbing the doctor’s finger.
Little Samuel Armas, he was operated at an age about that same time,
about five months after conception … He was operated on while he was
still in the womb. And [these fetal surgeons] know that these little
ones feel pain. They see the responses, there is plenty of evidence for
that.They give anesthetic and pain medicine directly to the unborn baby,
it’s not relying just on an anesthetic for mom. In fact, it’s
interesting, I came across one of the studies where they were talking
about the success of doing these operations while the little babies are
still in the womb, and they talked about how they address, beforehand,
the mom…BREAKMs. Dexter: It’s sort of amazing to me that the intent that the adults in
the world have for this baby have everything to do with whether or not
their pain is controlled because at that point, when they are operated
on, they are getting anesthesia. But if they are being aborted, they are
going to feel the entire pain of that awful abortion, correct?
Dr. Prentice:
Yes, that’s true, and it is just an attitude. It’s how we view this little one; it’s the same person in there, but it’s just how we view their worth to us.
We were talking about fetal surgery, where the surgeons recognize
that this is an issue. I mean these are their patient’s number one –Ms. Dexter:The unborn baby is their patient?
Dr. Prentice:
That’s right. They’re going on to do this surgery on an unborn baby
while still in the womb at five months or even earlier in their
development. There have been a few surgeries even earlier, but they
recognize that this little patient, at that point in their life – still in the womb – can experience pain.
In fact, it’s interesting: the leading clinical anesthesia
textbook says it’s clear that these little unborn babies can experience
pain as early as 16 weeks after conception, definitely by twenty. [It says] that these little unborn babies – they use the medical term “fetus” – that they are a patient, and that it is critical to administer anesthesia directly to them.
I was going to read you, this is what fetal surgeons tell the mother before they are going to go ahead and do the surgery. Listen to the almost tenderness here. It says:
“You’ll be given general anesthesia, and that anesthesia will put
your baby to sleep as well. In addition, during the prenatal surgery
your unborn baby will be given an injection of pain medication as well
medication to ensure the baby doesn’t move during the surgery.”
Again, these are little patients, very tender ones, and as we said
they can experience pain even more intensely than you or I do. [It’s]
this attitude – that these are little persons of worth that we need to
handle compassionately. They’re doing surgery for all sorts of types of
conditions now.
There’s a special fetal surgery wing, for example, at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that has done over 1,200 of these operations.
There are now almost a dozen or more special fetal surgery wings at
major hospitals around the country. Again, it’s recognizing that these
are patients and not some item to be discarded.Ms. Dexter:It’s so interesting that this huge hospital that does these
surgeries is in the same town where Kermit Gosnell existed for years.
It’s sort of the contrast between good and evil and life and death isn’t
it?
Dr. Prentice:
Right there within the same city. How shocking, in fact.Ms. Dexter:Tell us about the Charlotte Lozier institute, I know that the
last time I talked to you, you were at FRC, and I know that you all work
so closely together really all on the same page on these issues, but
tell us just about your position there and what that organization is
about.
Dr. Prentice:
Sure, what the Charlotte Lozier institute is the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, and your listeners have probably heard of that organization.
What we do at Charlotte Lozier is weare focused on science, we’re focused on statistics for life.
We are trying to put this information together so that Marjorie can use
a bullhorn to get the truth out there. So that Members of Congress,
state legislators, or other scientists or experts – when they speak to
the media, the public, or to their colleagues – can get the real facts
out there.
For so many years the prolife groups relied on the Guttmacher
Institute for the “facts” about abortion. That’s a real contradiction,
isn’t it, because Guttmacher of course is a spin-off from Planned
Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider in the nation. Should we have
relied on those people? Probably not, but they were the only game in
town.Well, there is a new game in town and the Charlotte Lozier
Institute intends to give the prolife, objective viewpoint of the real
facts about life from conception until natural death so that people have the facts and can use them.Ms. Dexter: When Roe v. Wade was decided, they acted like there was some sort
of a question about life and that this was a real baby. Prolifers knew,
anybody who was a believer, a Christian, or had faith knew this was
life because God created this life in the womb and we knew all that. But
they were able to get away with [that question of life’s beginning
when] they made [the Roe v. Wade] decision, and now because of the
science – again the science – has shown us what’s there from such an
early stage.I’ve got two grandchildren on the way and I’ve been able to see
the sonograms, and they are much clearer than the ones when I had my
children. It’s so clear and obvious, the humanity is just obvious and
clear now, and I think we are a little behind the curve almost in
getting this fetal pain ban passed.
Dr. Prentice:
We probably are, and it’s a matter that we need to keep educating people about the truth and the humanity of these little ones. You are right. It’s gone from back in those dark early days where we were told this was a blob of tissue to now these 4D ultrasounds where you can see the little one in there smiling and waving at you as they do somersaults. I mean, it is amazing.
That brings up another point too, another study from just last week.
What do the courts look at in terms of this issue of abortion? That term
“viability” often shows up. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection
Acts are not meant, at the federal or state level, to weigh in on that
issue of viability and survival outside the womb. They are meant to show
the humanity of that unborn child.
But even in terms of viability, the New York Times of all places reported last week on a new scientific study out in the New England Journal of Medicine
and their focus was on survival of these little ones. Very, very
premature babies, some as early as, yes five months after conception,
lining up just exactly with what these bills are going for, twenty weeks after conception. They are talking about how a number of these little ones even that early survive, and – lo and behold – if you actually intervene, care for them, and try to keep them alive many many, more of them survive.
It would seem to be common sense that, yes, if we actually do
something to help you breathe or live, you’ll survive. I just want to
point out that these are little lives. That there is humanity of this
little person, and we need to focus on that and preserve those lives.
To listen to the audio: http://pointofview.net/show/tuesday-may-12-2015/?listen_now=1LifeNews Note: Reprinted with permission from the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Jude Peters is
an adorable one-year-old boy living with a disease called rhizomelic
chondrodysplasia punctata (RCDP), a rare and fatal form of dwarfism.
Parents Hannah and Sully Peters refused to abort Jude even when doctors pressured them to “terminate and try again.” In an interview with FOX News, Jude’s mother said doctors expected that he would only live a few weeks.

“They told me that he might not be compatible with life outside of
the womb,” Hannah Peters said. “Then when he was born, they sent him
home on hospice and said he wouldn’t make it a few weeks.”

Baby Jude was diagnosed with dwarfism. His parents are continuing to chronicle his amazing journey.
Jude’s parents Hannah and Sullivan have done an amazing job of
sharing the story of their precious son with the world. Their Facebook
page, Praying for Jude Sullivan Peters, has close to 29,000 likes, and Hannah’s Instagram has over 19,000 followers. People across the globe have fallen in love with brave little Jude Peters.

Recently Jude received a beautiful cape from Tiny Superheroes, a
company that makes superhero capes for children battling illnesses. The
children who received the capes are suffering from serious conditions,
such as cancer, autism, epilepsy, and heart defects. The tiny
cape bearing the child’s first initial is a symbol of their courage and
strength.

When Jude received his cape, his father
asked their Facebook friends to share a super power they believe Jude
has. Amber Tessnear Chapman was one of many who said, “Jude’s super
power is being able to make anyone smile.”

Robyn
Walshaw said, “Jude has many super powers, some we probably don’t even
know about! The biggest is all the love he attracts! We can’t help but
love this tiny man even if we don’t know him. “

Arleth Torres Santacruz believes, “Jude’s
super powers include: being super cute, being a fighter, being a
warrior and somehow finding his way into everyone’s heart!”
Hannah recently shared on social media that she knew Jude was going to impact the world before he was born. She said:

I was told Jude would speak
to the nations before he was born. I didn’t know exactly what that would
look like until now. I didn’t realize the impact my child could have on
people all over the world.

His story
hasn’t just brought hope, faith and joy to my life, but to people all
over who have never even had the chance to meet him face to face. The
countless testimonies we receive from strangers telling us how Jude’s
story has brought healing and hope has been such a wonderful blessing to
us.

Since the
beginning of our journey with Jude, it has been my prayer that The Lord
would receive glory, people would be filled with hope and faith in him
and that maybe even amongst our greatest battles, our story could speak
life, healing, hope and truth. I am blessed and honored that this
precious gift has been placed in my hands. Jude’s story is a constant
inspiration to us all! May his life be a reminder that a single child’s
bravery – and the bravery of his mom and dad – has the potential to
touch hearts around the world.

Cecile
Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, appeared on TV over the
weekend for the first time since the Planned Parenthood scandal broke on
July 14.

ABC US News | World News
She sat with George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “This Week” to answer a few questions. What was true, and what was false?
Let’s review.CLAIM #1: “This [the Center for Medical Progress’ investigative video project] has been a three-year, well-funded effort…”FALSE: Well-funded? Does Cecile really want to talk
about well-funded? How about Planned Parenthood’s raking in of taxpayer
dollars to the tune of over $1.4 million a day? Compare this with the $120,000 David Daleiden says that the Center for Medical Progress received in donations over the course of three years. And then let’s talk about who’s well-funded.CLAIM #2: “…and of course, highly doctored videos,” “it’s all been edited out,” “very highly edited videos, sensationalized videos”FALSE: If all CMP had released were the eight or so
minute clips, then perhaps Richards would have had a very short peg leg
to stand on. However, almost immediately upon releasing the clips, CMP also
released the full footage of their discussions with Planned
Parenthood’s top doctors. All news agencies and reporters had the full,
unedited versions equally available to them. “Highly edited” became
rhetorical and pointless the minute the full footage was released.CLAIM #3:“…by the most militant wing of the
anti-abortion movement in this country…” “the folks behind this in fact
are part of the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement that
has been behind, you know, the bombing of clinics, the murder of doctors
in their homes, um, and in their churches…”FALSE: Is this really the best she can do? Instead of discussing what her
employees were caught doing on tape (discussing the piecing out of
babies to a fetal parts dealer), Richards goes for over-the-top,
slanderous rhetoric. David Daleiden, the leader of CMP, has been a
completely peaceful pro-lifer, in all of his 26 years of life. No one
associated with CMP has bombed a clinic or murdered a doctor in their
home or church. Richards speaks as though these things are common
occurrences, when, in reality, in America’s history of legal abortion
one, single abortionist has been murdered in his home (Slepian in 1998)
and one in his church (Tiller in 2009). Obviously, Daleiden and CMP
(which didn’t even exist until less than three years ago) were not
involved. Pro-lifers from every group, including, of course, Live
Action, denounce such lone-wolf actions immediately, and it is never a
part of what we do. There is no “militant wing” of the pro-life
movement. “Militant” involves being combative, aggressive, extreme, and
violent – a much better description of Planned Parenthood’s own practice
of ripping babies apart and selling their pieces.CLAIM #4: “What I want to make really clear, George, is Planned Parenthood has broken no laws.”FALSE: Whoa, Cecile. Perhaps her time would be
better spent reading, you know, the actual law instead of trying to put
pillowcases over the heads of the American public. Saying “Planned
Parenthood has broken no laws,” doesn’t make it so. And this article will take any American through a step-by-step explanation of how Planned Parenthood actually has broken multiples laws and violated federal regulations – by their top doctors’ own blatant admissions.CLAIM #5: “We have the highest standards.”FALSE: Oddly, the White House
seems to have bought this line from Planned Parenthood. However, if
Richards were to talk about real facts instead of making vague claims,
the truth would become painfully obvious. Manipulating vulnerable women into signing consent forms is not a “highest standard.” The complete absence of national company policy on fetal tissue “donation” is not a “highest standard.” Showing women a grainy photo of their baby’s ultrasound instead of the real-time image on screen is not a “highest standard.” Using that same real-time image to locate the baby’s heart, liver, and other organs to ensure they are not “crushed” during the abortion (so they can be sold) is not a “highest standard.” Attempting to gain profits in a non-monetary, backdoor way is not a “highest standard.” Shall we go on?CLAIM #6: “1 in 5 women in this country depend on Planned Parenthood for their healthcare.”FALSE: “Depend on” is a big claim. In reality, according to Planned Parenthood itself, “1 in 5 women has come
to Planned Parenthood…” Some of these women were no doubt like one of
my best friends who walked right out the door after Planned Parenthood
said they couldn’t help her if she was going to keep her baby. (They did
provide her with a referral number to a doctor. It was disconnected.)
Great level of dependence there, I tell you.CLAIM #7: Stephanopoulos: “You say that no Planned Parenthood affiliate has profited from fetal tissue.” Richards: “Correct, correct.”TRUE/FALSE: This is a hard one. Technically,
Richards’ statement is true. She does “say” that no Planned Parenthood
affiliate has profited from fetal tissue. But, in reality, (while there
are many ways to demonstrate
Richards’ sentiment as false), let’s look at one particularly revealing
admission made by Dr. Mary Gatter in the full footage of video two:

Heather [from fetal parts buyer, Novogenix] would look at
the tissue [at Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles] and take what she
required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal…

Tip to Mary Gatter and Cecile: No, that’s not legal. Getting
compensation for not “hav[ing] to do anything” is called making a
profit.CLAIM #8: “This is actually not about women’s healthcare.”TRUE: Touché! At last, Richards admits that this whole debacle is not about women’s healthcare. Unless,
of course, she thinks that crushing babies in just the right places so
as to abort them, but to still preserve their hearts, lungs, and livers
for sale, is women’s healthcare. Pretty sure most women would be creeped
out by that standard. (And they also probably wish Planned Parenthood
had told them their baby had parts, and “lower extremities,” along with a
heart, liver, brain, and lungs. Not just a “clump of cells” when we’re
talking about a business transaction, now is it?)CLAIM #9: Stephanopoulos: “Mary Gatter appears
to be haggling.” Richards: “Absolutely not.” … Stephanopoulous: “If
there’s not financial benefit to the clinics, why are they haggling over
the cost?” Richards: “They’re not. The only people that are haggling in
these videos are the undercover folks who are absolutely trying to
entrap doctors…”FALSE: We’ll just let a nice chunky clip from the full footage transcript illustrate who was really doing the haggling here:

Buyer: And are we agreed that $100 would keep you happy.

Gatter: Well let me agree to find out
what other affiliates in California are getting, and if they’re getting
substantially more, then we can discuss it then. … I mean, the money is
not the important thing, but it has to be big enough that it is
worthwhile.

Buyer: No, no, but it is something to talk about. I mean, it was one of the first things you brought up, right? So.

Gatter: Mhm [After another discussion of
price ideas]. … It’s been years since I talked about compensation, so
let me just figure out what others are getting, if this is in the
ballpark, it’s fine, if it’s still low then we can bump it up. I want a
Lamborghini. [laughs]

Buyer: [Laughs] What did you say?

Gatter: I said I want a Lamborghini! [laughs]

CLAIM #10: When Stephanopoulos asked Richards
about the money Planned Parenthood charges as a fee for fetal parts, she
replied: “It’s not a fee. It’s not a fee. It’s actually just the cost
of transmitting this material to research institutions.”FALSE: Wait… research institutions? In the
videos, Gatter and Nucatola were planning out sales with a for-profit
fetal parts buyer. They both admitted that Planned Parenthood works with
Novogenix, a company, and
it’s now well known that Planned Parenthood works with StemExpress,
which Richards herself called a “for-profit” company. So yeah,
“transmitting this material to research institutions” nothing. It’s more
properly called “charging a fee for fetal parts,” also known as making a
profit. (Plus, check this out: Nucatola says, “Well, it’s funny because at Planned Parenthood, we don’t consider that research.”CLAIM #11: Stephanopoulos: “The tapes appear to
describe times when the clinics adjust the abortion procedure to better
harvest – Richards: “It’s not done.” Stephanopoulos: “-the fetal organs”
Richards: “It’s absolutely not done. And I’ve talked to doctors all
across the country.” … Stephanopoulos: “It does appear that that’s
what’s being described in these tapes.” Richards: “Well, it’s because
these tapes have been edited, and they’ve tried to entrap doctors to say
things…and Iiiii, listen, I stand behind the healthcare that we provide
at Planned Parenthood.”FALSE: Maybe, just maybe, instead of talking “to
doctors all across the country,” Richards should talk to her own. The
full, unedited footage of both tapes reveals Nucatola and Gatter
explicitly describing how abortion procedures are changed to preserve
and harvest baby organs. Nucatola unabashedly admits to modifying
abortion procedures personally, because she’s “happy to help” the fetal
parts buyers. (Search this transcript for “less crunchy” and “IPAS” and this one for “crush” and “partial-birth abortion.”)CLAIM #12: Stephanopoulos: “When these doctors
are talking about…‘less crunchy’ ways to perform these abortions so that
the organs can be preserved, what’s happening there, are they just
lying?” Richards: “No. … That’s absolutely, all of this is taken out of
context. …” Stephanopoulos: “As long as the procedure is never altered,
and you’re stating that unequivocally?” Richards: “That’s right.”FALSE: Ok, so wait? Mary Gatter isn’t lying
when she says “less crunchy” abortions can be performed so babies can
be delivered “intact,” and ready for harvesting? I thought you just said
modifications of procedure were never done, Cecile. If that were true,
than Mary would have to be lying. Except you said she’s not, and, well,
she’s not. There’s no “context” in which it would make sense for an
abortion doctor to admit to changing abortion procedure unless that is
exactly what she does. I might walk back my “unequivocally” if I were
you, given the direct words of your Dr. Deborah Nucatola:

So then you’re just kind of cognizant
of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and
below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting
heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush
that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above,
and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium
[head], in general, some people will actually try to change the
presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex
presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the
case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact
calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation,
there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last,
you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are
certainly steps that can be taken…

CONCLUSION

Cecile Richards deserves an award: Most Number of Lies That Can be
Told to the American People in Ten Minutes on National Television.
Perhaps it’s now easier to understand her belief that “obviously…you
know, the most disgusting part of this to me” is that someone
“lied.”Yes, it is pretty disgusting.